RS Brazil
On October 9, 2026, Brazil's Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) and the Preservar Institute —a civil society association based in Rio Grande do Sul— filed a public civil action on climate issues against Shell Brasil Petróleo Ltda.
Case No. 5069002-52.2026.4.04.7100 was assigned to the federal judicial unit in Porto Alegre, which centralizes litigation related to the 2024 climate disaster in Rio Grande do Sul. The Institute of Collective Law (IDC) collaborated in preparing the case over the past few months, and the lawsuit requests the court to formally summon the IDC to join the proceedings.
The lawsuit seeks to establish the civil liability of Shell's Brazilian subsidiary for a proportional share of the damages caused by the extreme rainfall and flooding of April and May 2024. It is based on the Shell Group's historical and ongoing contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions. The action aims to obtain partial compensation for the damages, proportional to Shell's share of global emissions.
The causal argument is based on three complementary aspects of attribution science:
Attribution of warming, based on the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report.
Source attribution based on the 2024 Carbon Majors data update. This report ranks Shell ninth among the largest historical emitters, accounting for approximately 2.02% of cumulative global CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels and cement since 1854.
Attribution of the event, based on the study by Clarke et al. (*npj Natural Hazards*, 2026). This study concluded that, with a global warming of 1.2 °C, an event like the one in 2024 became approximately twice as likely, or about 12% more intense.
The plaintiffs asked the court to declare a causal link and the company's liability, and to order partial and proportional compensation. The lawsuit includes material damages initially estimated at approximately 270.5 million Brazilian reais (BRL)—a figure that will be precisely determined at a later stage—as well as an equivalent amount for collective moral damages. Any compensation would be allocated to a specific mechanism, overseen by the court, focused on reparations, climate adaptation, and disaster prevention in Rio Grande do Sul. This mechanism would be managed with the support of an independent technical advisory body and with the participation of the affected communities. As this is a class action, these sums constitute collective reparations, not individual compensation.
Cases like this are still relatively new in Brazilian courts. How judges, journalists, and the public understand them will depend largely on the legal and academic community. Independent voices help keep the debate grounded in the best available science and sound legal reasoning. These voices can explain what attribution science demonstrates—and does not demonstrate—as well as how similar cases have been handled in other jurisdictions. Their perspective on how this case fits into the broader landscape of climate liability litigation would be particularly valuable.
The claim is also based on the 2025 advisory opinions issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (OC-32/2025) and by the International Court of Justice.
The case is currently receiving media coverage, both nationally and internationally.
The lawsuit constructs a three-stage causal chain using attribution science: anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions caused global warming; emissions associated with the Shell corporate group represent approximately 2.02% of cumulative global CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels and cement from 1854 to 2024; and anthropogenic climate change made the 2024 extreme rainfall event approximately twice as likely and about 12% more intense. The plaintiffs argue that climate damage is a dimension of environmental damage governed by Brazil’s strict environmental liability regime, which includes the polluter-pays principle, indirect polluter liability, full remediation, and collective moral damages.
They request the court to declare the causal link and the environmental and climate responsibility of Shell; to grant compensation for material damages and for collective moral damages; that the funds be allocated exclusively to the recovery, reconstruction, adaptation, disaster prevention and the affected communities in Rio Grande do Sul; that an independently selected technical advisory body be required for the affected communities, at Shell's expense; and that the burden of proof be reversed.
The total amount in dispute is R$541,036,800. The claim is expressly based on Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, on climate, Carbon Majors data, research on the attribution of events, and comparative climate litigation.
Cases like this are still relatively new in Brazilian courts. How judges, journalists, and the public understand them will depend largely on the legal and academic community. Independent voices help keep the debate grounded in the best available science and sound legal reasoning. These voices can explain what attribution science demonstrates—and does not demonstrate—as well as how similar cases have been handled in other jurisdictions. Their perspective on how this case fits into the broader landscape of climate liability litigation would be particularly valuable.
- Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) of Brazil
- Preserve Institute
- Shell Brazil Petroleum
Brazil exhibits profound geographical and socio-environmental vulnerability to extreme weather events. The legal dispute stems directly from the historic floods of April and May 2024 in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil's southernmost region. The territorial disaster submerged entire cities (including the regional capital, Porto Alegre), destroying road infrastructure, homes, and vast areas of agricultural production. It is alleged that the disaster claimed the lives of more than 180 people and caused the forced displacement of half a million inhabitants, drastically altering the urban and demographic landscape of the region.
The abnormal warming of the waters in the Atlantic Ocean generated a high pressure zone in the geographic center of Brazil and created an atmospheric barrier that blocked the normal advance of cold fronts to the north, causing them to stagnate in the south of the country and diverting massive flows of maritime moisture towards Rio Grande do Sul, which multiplied the millimeters of rain well above the historical average.
The lawsuit, filed jointly with the environmental organization Instituto Preservar, represents a new episode in international litigation seeking to establish the responsibilities of large companies for the effects of climate change.
International agreements/treaties
- Paris Agreement
National laws
- National Climate Change Policy -PNMC (Federal Law No. 12,187).
- Public Civil Action Act (Law 7347/1985)
- National Environmental Policy (Law 6.938/1981)
Beginning
- Principle of prevention